The virostar that prevaricate in debates
Let’s try to make order to better understand what could happen in the immediate future. And what we could do to change our destiny for the better.
I present to you three facts that have as protagonist the virologist Roberto Burioni.
These are three shots and answers on T
The first addressed to Lucius Malan, member of Parliament and president of the Fratelli d’Italia group in the Senate, dates back to mid-April. Right after that a Claudio Borghi, senator leghista and the third, recent, to the writer Susanna Tamaro.
The plot that unites them must be well understood, since similar episodes were very frequent before and during the Covid pandemic by not only Burioni but other virostar and exponents of the scientific world.
Lucius Malan he wrote a teet on the illness that hit the yellow red footballer on the field Evan N’dicka: “These episodes are too frequent and we must clarify the numerical dimensions and the causes”.
Many of us, for at least a couple of years, are asking the same questions: on the amount of sportsmen put on the bench for health reasons, on young people afflicted, as never before, by cardiovascular diseases, as well as on the peak of abnormal mortality that in Italy there was not in 2020, but in the 2021 and surprisingly concentrated in the age group 15-45 years. Medicine (understood as the clinical art that makes use of the contribution of scientific research) has always questioned the peaks of abnormal mortality, formulates hypotheses and adopts preventive behaviors.
Therefore, it is no wonder that a Member of Parliament of the Republic is asking these questions, indeed we thank him because his demands are more forceful than ours.
What happened instead? We observe the words that Burioni used to respond to Malan: “His behavior is irresponsible and harms – by undermining trust in science – public health. The numbers agree to exclude … etc. [ … ]”.
Before going into the merits of the study cited by the virologist, let’s analyze the way to argue. Burioni teaches at the university, he is esteemed, he is invited to TV salons to talk about viruses and pandemics but, when he is faced with an interlocutor who poses some objection to him, he makes the grossest of mistakes that even in high school they teach you not to do. The opponent (understood as the bearer of a different position) never insults himself (for example by telling him “ her behavior is irresponsible, she harms”) you listen to him and then answer, if you can, on the merits (which is: let us ask ourselves why the many ailments). One account is the person, another what he claims. But who starts with “donkey” or ” charlatan” she shows that she only wants to be right by prevaricating and not that she wants to seek the truth or something that comes close to her.
In wanting to silence the opponent Burioni also introduces some useful elements to distract any readers. And that is the aspect of public responsibility that a politician, or a journalist, or a doctor, must have (“she harms public health by undermining trust in science”) to feel then authorized to ask for censorship of the interlocutor. To silence him, in short.
In fact, no one has to trust science, because science has to prove what it proposes every time. It’s not a faith. And the public responsibility of a politician certainly does not fail with a choral appeal to carry out investigations! If anything it would be if it censored, confused, got in the way of facts, analysis and commissions.
One wonders why Burioni and other virostar behave like this. Do they really not know how to argue or pretend hoping to intuit the distracted?
More or less on the same days Burioni pressed Senator Borghi with his style: “There are only two roads. Either she stops spreading dangerous lies or the Prime Minister has to demand her resignation. Such a level of irresponsibility at the top of the institutions is not tolerable”.
We wonder if the pretense of suggesting the premier take out a senator is genuine or is not rather a tactic to persuade the distracted that a virologist is all-powerful.
Now let’s see according to which study Professor Burioni says that vaccines are safe and have never resulted in deaths “except one death in New Zealand”. (Do you calm down, in your opinion, because New Zealand is a distant land?).
We asked the epidemiologist Stefano Petti whether it is really possible for a publication to exclude in full the responsibility of vaccines in deaths.
According to the aforementioned publication, in Oregon, 40 deaths from sudden cardiac death in vaccinated young people (16-30 years old) were controlled from June 2021 to December 2022, and only 3 happened less than 100 days after the vaccine.
“A paltry number that does not allow any statistics – said Petti. Assessments of the number of deaths are made by the death rate (example, 1 per 100,000 for each year) and not by absolute numbers, but by reading the article you understand that the death rate has not been calculated, why?
Then, the authors declare some limitations first, for example they did not analyze the possibility of cardiac deaths after 100 days after vaccination”.
Petti added: “Oregon is a small American state with the same population as Milan (4 million) and the vaccinated for that age were in the period considered (June 2021 December 2022) only a small part.
So three died, but what was the death rate? It would be 3/600, 000 in 100 days which corresponds to 1.83×100, 000 per year. But how many of the approximately 600,000 16-30-year-olds living in Oregon have been vaccinated? In fact, mortality must be calculated among the vaccinated who were only a part. Thus assuming that half of the young people have been vaccinated (and it is an excess estimate since in Oregon, according to Ouror, the total vaccinated population is 72%, almost all adults and a few young people), the mortality rate doubles, that is, 3.7 x 100,000 per year, which is at least three times the death rate from sudden death (sudden cardiac death, like the one that happened to the Pisa footballer who died during the match) which is found in young people under 35 years.
Is tripling mortality a reassuring fact? If in Milan there had been three deaths from immediate cardiac arrest within a short distance of vaccination (therefore excluding any deaths after 100 days) the deaths would not have gone unnoticed”.
Oibo, other than somarons and charlatans.
Someone alert Susanna Tamaro.
The writer, after sharing her account of the pandemic on the pages of the Courier (her experiences, including two vaccinations, and all the questions that have arisen over the years, from why to continue to do doses of mRNA to why not exonerate the cured, from why not let a doctor visit the sick from the first days to why mix different vaccines and so on)was targeted by aggressive and annoying teet
Besides Burioni felt compelled take back the courier warning “not to publish more such nonsense dangerous to public health that undermines trust in medicine”.
Does the antiphon happen?
Original source: https://blog.ilgiornale.it/locati/2024/05/02/le-virostar-che-prevaricano-nei-dibattiti/
